vy8vWJlco

50 ms·

1. 421.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 14y ago

   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-vitamin-e-users... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMYIJlmeSFM
2. 422.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 14y ago

   highly under-used: grep -c -e . -r .
3. 423.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   Yup. There are free ones too (for example, http://domainmx.net/ -- if you are willing to trust any third party, with your data, or can convince everyone emailing you to use encryption) but, even the pay services put us squarely back in th
4. 424.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   Lots of ISPs block incoming SMTP and other "server" ports (to name one of several anticompetitive--I mean, security-enhancing--practices). And MX records don't support an alternative port to my knowledge. Unless you shell out for the "real
5. 425.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   Linux distributions (and GNU, and BSDs) don't have to "win" the desktop. They already have, with one important qualification: you have to care. Mind you, if you are looking for one-size-fits-all, Windows fits the bill perfectly. All the cho
6. 426.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   Yep. Luckily the sky is rising! :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is...
7. 427.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   Nothing wrong with choice. I think it's important that people treat me fairly. That's practicality, IMHO.
8. 428.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   I do, but I care about CODE. Without code, I didn't GET freedom. :)
9. 429.▲
   by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

   jQuery Diaspora Linux
10. 430.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary becaus
11. 431.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    US: HR.1981 Canada: Bill C-30
12. 432.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    It looks like it's becoming a "status quo" document because, for the sake of credibility, noone wants to stand up on copyright, privacy, censorship, and human rights. The "what if someone posts illegal content!?" questions dominate, just li
13. 433.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    If that's his strongest apology for ACTA, I think I can go back to bed. Kudos to Andrew for not using the word "freetard" in this one.
14. 434.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    I feel like I have been working to train and support people, and giving people legs in the form of networks and software just so they can turn around and kick me with them. Did we do this to ourselves?
15. 435.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    Every programmer I know I'd call a hacker or a prankster, and a tinkerer. The kind of person laughing at the WAT video from recent past, or the kind of someone who would program his talking bathroom scale to read your weight in a foreign la
16. 436.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about the window size, just TFO. I agree, you as an application developer shouldn't have to recreate TCP. The code already exists, I'm just suggesting that it shouldn't live in the kernel/OS. There's
17. 437.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    I guess my point is: doesn't demoting the front-end of TCP constitute admission that it should have been carried by UDP in the first place? TFO basically says the handshake is really just UDP, and the TCP connection doesn't really exist exc
18. 438.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    Do you mean that being ring-0 makes TCP faster, or insulates existing code?
19. 439.▲
    by vy8vWJlco 15y ago

    TCP fast open (TFO) effectively fires data in the blind in the establishment phase and then handles the timeout gracefully. That sounds like vanilla UDP (or your favorite best-effort protocol) to me.